Moin moin Freunde,
als wenn Bergen nicht schon artilleristisch stark geschützt war, plante man noch einen der Drillingstürme des ital. Schlachtschiffe Conte di Cavour nach Norwegen zu bringen.
Interessant wäre jetzt die Frage, ob denn nun noch ein Turm ausgebaut und nach Norwegen verfrachtet wurde, bevor das Schiff im Febr. 1945 bei einem Luftangriff auf Triest kenterte.
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/384.jpg)
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/385.jpg)
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/386.jpg)
(Quelle: NARA)
Grüße
René
Rene,
wenn da ein Cavour-Turm eingebaut worden wäre, dann wäre das bekannt, vermutlich ein Museum wie das Fort mit einem der Gneisenau-Türme und Enrico hätte schon ein Buch darüber geschrieben :-D
Ich glaube, das Unternehmen ist an den Werftkapazitäten und den Transportkapazitäten gescheitert. Wäre aber interessant, mehr Einzelheiten zu erfahren. Vor allem, weil das logistisch so anspruchsvoll war. Man hätte ja viel leichter bereits in Nord-, Mittel- oder Osteuropa vorhandene schwere Kanonen (z.B. Eisenbahngeschütze) zur Aufstellung bringen können, als eine komplette Barbette aus einem reparaturbedürtigen italienischen Schlachtschiff auszubauen und so kleinteilig wie möglich über die Alpen zu schaffen. :MV:
Gruß
Ekke
Eingebaut ist mit Sicherheit keiner worden, aber wurden die Türme ausgebaut?
Whitley schreibt lediglich, daß das Schiff in der Werft koplett desarmiert wurde, nichts genaueres.
Und selbst das hätte ich gern noch aus einer zweiten Quelle bestätigt.
Hallo René,
ich finde gerade meine CD nicht zu den Angriff auf CONTE DI CAVOUR.
Kannst Du nicht die Seite einstellen mit der Vernichtung des Schlachtschiffes ?
Ich meine ja mich zu erinnern können das dieses Datum von der allgemeinen Geschichtsschreibung abweicht.
Gruß
Theo
Die Türme wurden wieder eingebaut. Ob die Waffen komplett eingebaut wurden, weiß ich momentan nicht.
Desarmiert ist richtig, da anschließend eine Neubewaffnung erfolgen sollte. Anstelle der 12cm neue 13,5cm Mehrzweckwaffen, statt der 10cm neue 6,5cm halbautomatische Flak.
Nachtrag:
"Conte di Cavour" wurde eigentlich schon vor ihrem Werftaufenthalt desarmiert. Um die Bergung zu erleichtern wurden die schweren Geschütze und die Turmpanzerungen schon am halb versunkenen Schiff ausgebaut. Im Sommer 1943 befanden sich alle 32cm-Geschütze mit Turmpanzerungen wieder auf der "Conte di Cavour", inklusive der neuen 13,5cm-Mehrzweck-Zwillingstürme.
Quelle: "Orizzonte mare" über die Schlachtschiffe der "Conte di Cavour"-Klasse.
Moin moin,
@ Theo,
dein Langzeitgedächtnis funktioniert aber noch sehr gut. :-D
Lt. Seekommandant Istrien ist Cavour am 20.02.1945 gekentert. Leider wird im KTB des MOK Süd nur der Luftangriff mit der Versenkung von TA 48 vermerkt, jedoch kein Hinweis auf Cavour.
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/625.jpg)
Grüße
René
Danke René !
Was nützt mein gutes Langzeitgedächnis und zu jeden Schiffsnamen fast eine Geschichte wenn ich nicht einmal die CD wieder finde !
Anderseits bin ich ja stolz einmal bei der "Dickschiffforschung" mit mischen zu können.
Wie breit waren die Türme denn ?
Kann mir garnicht vorstellen das diese dicken Brummer mit der Eisenbahn transportiert werden konnten.
Gruß
Theo
Naja, die alte ö-u 30,5 konnten vor dem 1wk auch nach Triest geschafft werden - und die 32cm waren ja im Grunde auch nur aufgebohrte 30,5 :wink:
mfg
alex
@Theo,
die Türme waren ein Baukastenprinzip. Panzerplatten auf einem Rahmen. Man konnte sie in kleine Lasten zerlegen.
The idea to use a thee 320 mm turret from Cavour is a logic one, the more if we consider the fact the German navy used any available French big gun, old or brand new, for her coastal defences.
I'm asking myself, anyway:
a) why to use only one 320 mm tower when there were four available? (Or there are further infos about the reminder ones?)
b) Was Cavour used as an harbour defence ship at Trieste? If one tower was so efficient to be planned to be dismantled ahd shipped to Norway what about the other three? Was not more economic to mantain them in an efficent condition too in static defence or, at worste, in a training task at Trieste?
c) Why to spent time to dismantle the 320 mm from Cavour (and the tower!) when there were the 15 in guns of the not completed BB Impero and the old 15 in of the WW I class caracciolo on railway wagons at Spezia? One of them was found in Germany by the British on 1945, but the other ones?
Bye
EC :O/S
I don´t think, that Rene can provide enough information to answer your questions, however he proved, that there had been thoughts of the German Naval Supreme Command to transfer one triple 32 cm turret from the Italian battleship CONTE DI CAVOUR to be embedded in the outer defenses of Bergen (Norway).
Spee mentioned, that parts of the turrets were removed, when CAVOUR got salvaged after the Taranto disaster, but remarked, that the main armament was on board Cavour again in summer 1943.
In question is now, if guns got removed again from the main battery of the ship a year later, even if they never should have reached their Norwegian designation. By that time, the German transportation infrastructure was under an increasing strain through bomb attack, for that much is true. According to your question considering heavier Italian guns I might add the suggestion, that the heavier a gun, the more difficult is it to put in place. Propably other questions like transportation and ammunition might have played a role.
Since you are in Italy, you possibly might find other sources to confirm or deny some of the thoughts and suggestions made in this thread.
Cheers
Lt.
Well,
the facts are: on 8 Sept. 1943 Cavour was still 6 months far from commission and all her main guns were on board with the four main towers efficient inder the direction of Capitano di Corvetta Sas Kulczyski. The ship was lost on 23 Feb. 1945 after to have been damaged eight days before during an air raid. The damges were quite minor ones, but the battleship had no crew, even a skeleton one, to do control damages as by now that was a mere hulk.
The strange, anyway, is she had still her 37 mm guns servicieable on Feb. 1945 (one of them is in the Henriquez Museum at Triest and was recovered from the ship, which capsized by slow flooding).
The Kriegsmarine had the habit to remove everything useful from the ships which were no more used, from the precius materials like bronze and brass, to equipment and weapons. The only logic solution for that 37 mm adn her more than probable sisters on board (fitted moreover with a shield according the German habit, but no the Italian one) is the ship served as a floating AA battery on 1943-1945. Maybe in 1944 she had a (reduced?) capacity as a floating anti naval battery too with at least one triple 320 mm tower. By August 1944 the Germans believed strongly, except th ealways optiist and stubborn Marshal Kesserling, the campaing in Italy would be soon over. Th eidea to recover one triple 320 mm tower and her personnnel would have been, by that time, a logic solution.
To verify this suspect, anyway, the ball is now in the German other half of the field.
Bye
EC
@Enrico,
maybe the germans have had a shortage of ammunition for the italian guns? There is no sense to create a costal battery of 10 guns with only 100 rounds of ammunition. It's not simple to produce new ammunition, if the former italian manufacturer is in allied hands or did not the material or is destroyed. Remember, the german Kriegsmarine was allways short on heavy rounds at this time.
Btw: "Smiling Al" has held Italy longer than everyone expected.
The "Festung Norwegen"-site of Bjoern Jervas provides the following information about the 1945 artillery batteries at Fortress Bergen:
ARTILLERIEGRUPPE BERGEN
Stab.MAA 504 in Gravdal
MKB 1/ 504 Kvarven 1.
Equipped with 3 x 21 cm. L 45 St, Chamond guns
MKB 2/ 504 Kvarven 2.
Equipped with 3 x 24 cm. St.Chamond howitzers
MKB 3/ 504 Sandviken.
Equipped with 2 x 24 cm. St. Chamond howitzers
MKB 4/ 504 Hellen.
Equipped with 3 x 21cm. St.Chamond guns
MKB 11/ 504 Fjell
Equipped with 3 x 28 cm skc/34 guns (from the ship "Gneisenau")
MKB 12/ 504 "Sperrbatterie Bergen ", was composed of these units:
Nordenes, with 2 x 7,5cm. KL/44
Laksevaag 2 x 10,5 cm. SKC/32
Lyreneset, 2 x 8,8 cm AA guns
Kvarven torpedo-battery, equipped with 3 x 45 cm. tubes
Army Batterys:
1./280 Selo
2./280 Varden
3./280 Straum
German OOB for Navy FLAK in Bergen 15 December 1944
"Marine-Flakgruppen-Kommando Bergen"
Stab/Mar.Flakabt. 801 Bergen
(14. Flakbrig. (mot) unterstellt.)
Mar.Flakbattr. (Stabsbattr.) 1 / 801
" (8,8 cm) 2 / 801
" (8,8 cm) 4 / 801
" (10,5 cm) 5 / 801
" (4 x 3,7 cm) 6 / 801
" ( 2 cm + 2 x 60 cm Schw.)
" (2 cm + 60 cm Schw.) 7 / 801
Scheinwerf. Battr. (150 + 200 cm) 8 / 801
Mar.Flakbattr. (10,5 cm) 3 / 801
Stab/mar.Flakabt. 802 Bergen
(14. Flakbrig. (mot) unterstellt.)
Navy Flak Batterys, Flakabt. 802, specifications.
1/802 Natland 4 x 10,5 cm SKC/32 mit Dreiwag
2 x 2 cm Flak (Stabsbatterie)
2/802 Askøy 4 x 10,5 cm SKC/32 mit Kleinkog
2 x 2 cm Flak
3/802 Fagerdal 4 x 10,5 cm SKC/32 mit Dreiwag
2 x 2 cm Flak
4/802 Blåman 4 x 10,5 cm SKC/32 mit Dreiwag
2 x 2 cm Flak
5/802 Olsvik 4 x 10,5cm SKC/32 mit Kleinkog
2 x 2 cm Flak
6/802 Storrind 4 x 10,5 cm SKC/32 mit Dreiwag
2 x 2 cm Flak, 4 x 3,7 cm
7/802 Løvås 4 x 10,5 cm SKC/32 mit Dreiwag
2 x 2 cm Flak
8/802 Scheinwerf. Battr. (150 + 200 cm)
5/802 Fjell 4 x10,5 cm SKC/32 mit Dreiwag
2 x 2cm Flak
1/802 Natland II 4 x 12,8 cm Flak 40 mit Lg5
3 x 2cm Flak
2/802 Askøy II 4 x 12,8 cm Flak 40 mit Lg5
3 x 2cm Flak
11/802 Holmengraa 2 x 2 cm Madsen
802 was commanded by MAA 504 in Gravdal. CO 802: Korv. Kpt Moldenhauer.
All 10,5 cm batterys were partly radar guided.
All other Artillery Groups of the Kriegsmarine in that area (alltogether six) did not sport a very heavy naval gun (above 8 inch). So obviously the italian guns never reached fortress Bergen, even though they might have been removed from CAVOUR.
Cheers
Lt.
Hello Lt. Werner,
if U was able to translate rightly the previous e-mails the three 320 mm guns had to be mounted in a tower, so it had to be Cavour and not spare guns of the same type.
The argouments about the munitons are interestng (by the way I didn't know about lack of big calibre shells in the KM), but the Italian factories for munitions and explosives were almost all in the northern part of the peninsula and until 1945 the Italain output of munitons was almost unvaried since 1940. At Pola Cesare was actig since Jan. 1943 as a gunnery school ship, so I believe that Cavour, if used a floating battery by the KM, had no problem with muniotns. personnel would be a different matter, even if the Italian one was available, so the probles are the following ones:
a) was Cavour used as an ack ack floating battery? The Museum Enriquez evidence suggests it was, at least with Italian 37 mm single guns modified according the German way with shields
As we know by the Ansaldo documents the 65/64 mm AA guns were not mounted or adopted and that Cavour had, on Dec. 1941, when she sailed on her own power from Taranto to Trieste, only 8 twin 37/54 while the a.m. Museum Henriques one is a single and not a twin weapon of this calibre and that the Italian Navy final 1942 project for that battleship reconstruction did not foreseen this kind of weapon, but twelve single 65/64 mountings, 10 twin 20/65 mm and 3 single 20 mm, we can presume the single 37 mm had been placed by the Germans where the 65764 would have to be mounted (by the way the same solution, without shields, was adopted by the Regia Marina on the little Capitani Romani crusiers she sommissioned on 1942-1943).
As the German Navy used between 1943 and 1945 in the widest possible way the Italian 37/54 single mounting as that weapon was suitable to be mounted on small boats (while the twin mountigs suffered from heavy vibrations and need a strong platform as she tormented the structure like a 100 mm twin mounting) the fact the KM mounted thus kind of weapon on Cavour confirm she paid an appreciable importance to that ship as a floating AA battery until her loss on Feb. 1945.
A mix of 37 mm and 20 mm is so the more probable solution to guard the entry of the harbour from enemy low flying bombers carrying torpedoes or, later, rockets.
b) If the ship worked an an AA floating battery why not to use her as a low-angle battery too?
We know by photos the 320 mm guns were mounted and efficient on 8 Sept. 1943 and the 135/45 mm ones too
in a new kind of twin mounting which allowed an higher degree of elevation that the Dorias and the Capitani Romani for AA barrage fire too and had to be replied on the two "Siamese" anti-aircraft cruisers too.
The KM, like Regia Marina during Summer 1943, used any time she had the opportunity the 135 mm gunst for shore defence. Why she would have to let these useful guns idle on Cavour? So or she dismounted the turrets or she mainained her on the battleship adding their barrels at the AA task of the ship. Lack of evidence (photos or german documents like the one which originated this thread) does not allow to speculate more about this thesis.
c) At least one 320 mm tower was efficient and the KM thought to translfer her to Norway when war inn italy seemed near to the end during Summer 1944. The transfer did not materialize, but a big gun tower is a delicate tool. The idea to dismantle the tower imply: the enduring efficiency, since Autunm 1943 to Summer 1944, of the tower and the exisestence of trained personnel. The idea to use in Norway Italian personnel which had not only to assist the dismantlig, transfer and re-building of the tower, her guns, munitions, propellants and the fire control material during a more than one year process after Italy had been occupied and the families of this same personnel were divided from them by the Alps and the front line is someway too much. To believe, then, that German personnel only, with the lack of sailors, NCO and officiers the KM suffered between 1942 and 1945, could have been spared to man a floating battery at Triest is quite odd indeed. moreover as we know by photos and movies that the rule was to use a mix of Italian and German naval artillery parties in Italy and France.
This order of ideas suggests that the German personnel which had to be dispatched to Norway had been trained, by Aug. 1944, on Cavour (and a typical session needs at least six month before to be considered combat ready, something more once you have to face the barries of lenguage and different material) and that they were all the available people for that task. Given the usual proportion between Italian and German parties in the shore and floating batteries on 1944-1945, Cavour had so to have at least her two triple towers manned by mixed personnel as a floating battery guarding the Trieste harbour entrance.
Given these hypotesis it would be interesting to discover if German documents of photos can support these thoughts. Maybe even some simple panorama views of Trieste between Sept. 1943 and Feb. 1945 which includes Cavour could be useful.
Greetings
EC :O/Y
PS An Italian source wrote that the two Siamese cruisers were used as AA floating batteries at Trieste on 1944-1945. I had always some very severe doubts about this statement as the two hulls were soon stripped of everything useful and sent to Muggia where they sunk without any maintenance, anyway a kernel of truth, referred to Cavour, could be real, or perhaps that was the original German and Italian idea about those two ships. Any further info would be welcome.
Ich hab leider nichts mehr von der Cavour gefunden, jedoch sind folgende Seiten sehr interessant, da man sehr gut sieht, wie es um die Munitionsversorgung der Batterien aussah.
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/01%7E6.jpg)
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/02%7E5.jpg)
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/03%7E2.jpg)
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/04%7E0.jpg)
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/05.jpg)
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/06.jpg)
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/07.jpg)
Quelle: NARA
Vom SchlPr.11:
Die Schwere Artillerie der CONTE DI CAVOUR war verschiedentlich Gegenstand im KTB der SKL. Ich werde gelegentlich dort wieder einmal nachlesen.
Heute biete ich dieses Foto aus meiner Sammlung zur weiteren Diskussion an.
Reinhard
Hi Reinhard,
the pics were glamorous, but I was unable to translate your sentences, sorry. Is available some further photo, mayne the two ex Thai cruisers or the TA 44 Pigafetta? Perhaps the 37 mm of the Henriquez collection was, instead on that DD (it would be, anyway, the first mistake by that collector), and the original label of the museum is wrong.
Welcome back Renè. Your documents are, again, very interesting. The LG will leave tomorrow. Let me know when it will arrive there.
Good night
EC
@Rene, Reinhard: top
Reinhard mentioned that the main battery of Conte di Cavour was discussed in the war diary of the german naval supreme command several times.
He will read occasionally there.
Danke Geronimo, I had understood exactly the inverse.
Herzlichkeit
EC
Hello Gentlemen,
I was able to find the triple 320 mm tower from Cavour.
The Rivista Marittima, May 1951, page 268, stated she was in the Henriquez Museum. It had been remived from Cavour by the Germans during Autumn 1944, but she never leaved Triest. When the battleship sunk she capsized and the other towers were lost on the bottom of the gulf.
May you would be able to discover by photos or documents which tower was and if the German Navy armed that ship as a floating battery?
A more and more curious
EC :O/S
And a photo of the guns, dated 1954, emerged from a book by Erminio Bagnasco, "Aldo Fraccaroli, fotografo navale", page 100.
EC
Hallo Freunde,
es geht weiter. Meldung vom 16.10.1944
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/Cavour1.jpg)
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/Cavour2.jpg)
Grüße
René
top
04.10.1943
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10237/Caveur.jpg)
Hallo Renè,
prima !
Jetzt wo ich die Seiten sehe habe ich auch die Info vor Augen.
Aber das ist ja nun der wunderbare Vorteil wenn wir / du / Filme der KTBs haben mit den ganzen Text.
Man konnte ja nicht das ganze KTB als Kopie bestellen, abschreiben erst recht nicht.
So kann man immer bestimmte Sachen nachblättern und finden ( wenn ein aufmerksamer Mann vor der Röhre sitzt !!).
Gruß
Theo
... aus dem KTB Admiral Adria vom 30.12.1943:
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10123/0178-web.JPG)
(http://forum-marinearchiv.de/coppermine/albums/userpics/10123/0179-web.JPG)